Of course it's OK for you to post here! We love it when lurkers come out and play and hope to see lots more of you here at Maintainers. Trust me, there are plenty of us looking to get rid of ten bonus pounds!

I posted a little bit about this topic here, but here is another tidbit of info from my Neuroscience book.

Apparently, animals have a "desired" weight that they will maintain at. Suppose you have a rat that is at a normal weight. If you force feed the rat, it will gain, but when the force feeding stops, it will voluntarily eat less until returning to its original weight. If you then starve the rat, it will lose weight, but when food is returned it will eat until it gains back to the original weight.

Maybe for some people the "desired" weight is screwed up? (That is entirely my own speculation, not from the book!)

Another interesting thing from the book that has nothing to do with this but was so bizarre that I have to tell you about it. Some rats don't naturally produce leptin (which I know has been discussed here). These rats are so huge they look like spheres. Apparently they can do a surgery where they take one of these spherical rats and fuse it to a normal rat, so they are sharing the same blood flow (BIZARRO I know). When they do that, the spherical rat returns to normal size! (But it has another rat attached to it like conjoined twins, which is really weird.) Anyway, I just thought it was pretty bizarre that they can even do a surgery like that.

Thought this thread was really interesting...I am not a maintainer, but it is on my mind a lot and in some ways I now consider myself to be maintaining my loss more adamantly than trying to lose more (losing is fine, but I do not want to go up ever ever again). As as obvious by my ticker, I was never obese, and only about 10-15 lbs into the overweight category (close to "normal" again now, yay). However, I have found in my counting calories that if I constitently go above say about 1400 or 1500 calories a day (averaging over time) that I start to gain weight back. The times 10 analogy for my basal seems to work best, and with a goal weight of 120 I assume I will be eating around 1200 (maybe 100-200 more if I can exercise and increase my muscle mass, I'll admit I'm not on top of that now). I am also quite young so this is not an effect of ageing.

I am not formerly-obese, and while I've been "overweight" probably my whole life (up until now) I wonder if the same thing would apply to people who maybe have a tendency for obesity? I try not to use genes as an excuse, but my mother, father and sister have all been obese at various times (mother had bypass surgery, father diets on atkins now and then, and sister currently obese, though she diets occasionally as well). I'm not saying it's been comparitively difficult to lose weight, it's a whole process I'm still trying to understand and I don't resent that it's "easy" or "easier" for some people, just seems my calories are comparitively low for someone who has never been obese, and I don't think I'm the only one. I wonder if there's something else, maybe genetic, maybe a combination of things (like I said, I've *always* been overweight, even if not by much). Definitely interesting thoughts though, have enjoyed reading the posts and I think Dr. Liebel's work has some merit, even if the full implications aren't understood.

__________________MilesChristmas Mini-Goal:"What would you try if you knew you couldn't fail?"

Apologies if I am repeating anything as I haven't read the entire thread (just read the first page), but could someone please clarify what 'reduced obese' actually means in terms of weight loss. For example, would I be considered 'reduced obese'? - I weighed in at 154 pounds 3 months ago (which is actually considered to be perfect for my height of 5 feet 8 inches, but way more than I usually weigh as I am a slight build) and now weigh 130 pounds. Does this qualify me as 'reduced obese'?

I've seen the term 'reduced obese' used in medical literature without a clear definition. However, usually 'obesity' is medically defined as a BMI over 30 (with a BMI over 40 considred to be 'morbidly obese'). In a few places, I've read that the metabolic effects of weight loss kick in when one has lost 10% of their body weight - that's the number that triggers the body to go into 'gain back the fat' mode. In the experiments that have been done with leptin, I think the subjects first drop 10% of their weight in order to reduce their leptin levels.

Certainly you weren't obese using BMI but you have lost 10% of your body weight ... I don't know if any of this might apply to you personally -- do you feel like it might?

I've seen the term 'reduced obese' used in medical literature without a clear definition. However, usually 'obesity' is medically defined as a BMI over 30 (with a BMI over 40 considred to be 'morbidly obese'). In a few places, I've read that the metabolic effects of weight loss kick in when one has lost 10% of their body weight - that's the number that triggers the body to go into 'gain back the fat' mode. In the experiments that have been done with leptin, I think the subjects first drop 10% of their weight in order to reduce their leptin levels.

Certainly you weren't obese using BMI but you have lost 10% of your body weight ... I don't know if any of this might apply to you personally -- do you feel like it might?

Thank you so much for your reply.

I'm not sure if I think it applies to me. I only reached my target weight this week and am hoping to maintain from now on. The thing is that I am naturally slim and only gained weight because I became a complete pig over the past year. I am usually around the 9 - 9.5 stone mark anyway, so for me to be almost 11 stone was out of the ordinary.

I guess I hope it doesn't apply to me in the sense that I would like to keep the weight off, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did.

Thanks to 3FC. I've been lurking here since I reached my goal weight in September 2006. I started at 224lbs (102kgs) and am now (today) at 142lbs (64kgs). I think I've been fortunate that I've been able to lose weight under a program that suited me. I had tried others, and took advice from nutritionists on how to eat properly, you know, eat 3 meals, 3 snacks daily. This was good for me to maintain at 224lbs, but not to lose weight.

I recall when I put on the weight. I was studying full time with limited income. I ate muesli, bread, pasta, rice - yup - all those cheap filling foods. Well, you know that you can lose up to a kilo (2.2lbs) a week. Well, I know that you can put it on that fast too. I sat down in February at 70kgs, and stood up in September weighting 94kgs. It wasn't rocket science, but it took me about 10 years to work it out.

Now I've lost my 80+lbs, and getting to the world of maintenance was something that I had not been to before, and there was scant information about it - it seemed - anywhere! So, this thread is great for me - and thanks to 3FC.

My experience in the 4 months since I've been maintaining is that my actions and behaviours are no different than when I was losing. I still weigh my food and eat the same amount of foods I lost on. I still only eat 3 meals a day. I don't eat junk, and if I'm going out - I plan for it for the day, and don't go overboard. I find that I just can't eat like I used to as a "formerly obese person". I know that I will gain if I add just a few extra things into my diet.

So, diet and maintenance are one and the same for me. I know now that it will be a life long journey, and one that I hope will become a routine. It helps that I love my fresh unprocessed food diet.

I agree with the other members who acknowledge their lifestyle changes starting the day they commence their "diet". I wouldn't have said that on the day I started my "diet" in October 2005 at 224lbs. It's only now that I'm here, that in hindsight, I can say that it is true.

I've read through this entire thread now and it ties in very nicely with "Rethinking Thin" that I just finished. As so many have pointed out: at first it's disappointing to find proof that it WILL be harder to maintain the new weight but it's also a comfort to know that the problems are real and not just something in our heads.

And in knowing all this new information I feel more equipped to deal with maintaining my goal weight, because forewarned is forearmed.

Back to the equation Stored Body Fat = Food Intake – Energy Expenditure - the energy expenditure (I’m going to abbreviate it as EE) part is made up of three parts: resting energy expenditure, non-resting EE, and thermic (the digestion of food). Resting EE accounts for about 50 – 60% of the calories we burn in a day, thermic accounts for about 5%, and non-resting EE makes up the remainder.

Here’s the deal - it takes 50 calories per kg of LBM to maintain the body weight of either a normal or an obese person. BUT … it takes only 42 calories per kg of LBM to maintain the weight of a reduced obese person.

...

Now we know that it’s a FACT and we know why – our non-resting EE slows down by 15 – 20%.

I know this thread hasn't had any replies for quite some time - and I'm a newbie - but as a mathemetician, I'd like to point out a contradiction here :

If all of the new 'efficiencies' (15%) in the reduced-obese come from the NON-resting EE and the non-resting EE makes up about 40% of the total (5% thermic, 55% resting EE) - then the actual caloric difference would be about 6% (15% of 40%) not 15% total. Of course the 42 cals versus 50 cals per kg of LBM says differently, so I would be a bit curious as to which is actually correct.

I would BET that the 6% figure is correct, otherwise, it would mean that the muscles of the reduced-obese are actually about 40 PERCENT (40% of 40% = 16%) more efficient than 'normal' people and I find that number hard to swallow. That means the reduced-obese should be uber-long distance athletes as they are so much more efficient than normal people in muscle efficiency.

Anyways - just my two cents.

I also think people need to understand that as in many such scientific studies - there is probably going to be so much individual differences within the studied group that applying it to youself is problemmatic. You can see this in this forum quite well - same goal weight - very different caloric requirements to keep that final goal weight depending on the person.

I'll tell you what opened my eyes the most so far - the difference between me at 220 pounds and me at 210 pounds is about 60 calories a day - and so on down to my goal weight. I deprive myself of a slice a bread a day and I will drop almost 20 pounds over the next year or two. That is SO trivial, I know I can do that. As a maintainer, we will all get to the point where we decide how many slices of bread (or miles of walking) are worth how many extra pounds. The science is interesting and motivational, but I'm not convinced it is RELEVANT to all (or even most) of us.

This thread was very interesting and encouraging. I'm sure, like anything else, this information will not apply to everyone, but for those that it does apply to, it's so helpful. I never officially reached the obesity category; I sat at the high end of overweight. Regardless of that, I relate to the information shared. Maybe that has more to do with losing more than 10% of my body weight, as someone else mentioned as a marker. All I know is that with my weight loss, it's still easy for me to gain and harder to lose/maintain.

Having said that, I will say that when I did maintain my loss for that first year, it was both easy and hard. It was easy to maintain as long as I continued eating relatively the same as I had while losing. It was hard in the sense that I had to continue eating the same as I had while losing. I'm like others here who have mentioned the need to stay in a tight calorie range, and if even slightly above that range for a day or two, my weight would immediately start going up. Being armed with this information, I feel like I will handle maintenance better this time around...once I get there again. Honestly, regardless of the reason why this is true for some, the reality is that just knowing that something is "off" makes it easier to accept and deal with the reality of it. So, I don't really care if I know for sure what "it" is, as "it" is probably multiple factors anyhow, but it sure helps just knowing that my gut instinct is finally being backed up by scientists who are understanding more and more that there is something to all of this.